Relations Between Rome and the German 'Kings' on the Middle Danube in the First to Fourth Centuries AD

8/12/2019 Relations Between Rome and the German 'Kings' on the Middle Danube in the First to Fourth Centuries AD

1/15

Relations between Rome and the German 'Kings' on the Middle Danube in the First to Fourth

Centuries A.D.Author(s): Lynn F. PittsSource: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 79 (1989), pp. 45-58Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/301180Accessed: 16/10/2008 10:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprs.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studiesis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to The Journal of Roman Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/301180?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/301180?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/15

RELATIONS BETWEEN ROME AND THE GERMAN 'KINGS' ON THEMIDDLE DANUBE IN THE FIRST TO FOURTH CENTURIES A.D.*

By LYNN F. PITTSI

In recent years the 'rex sociusque et amicus' of the Roman Empire-frequently,if mistakenly, called a 'client king'-has been the subject of much study, notably byD. Braund.1 Although ostensibly Braund and others are discussing the position androle of these kings on all the Roman frontiers, they concentrate in the main on those inthe east. This is perhaps inevitable, since literary and epigraphic evidence abounds forthe east, while it is scarce and often ambiguous for the west. Unfortunately directcomparison between east and west is meaningless: conditions which can be seen toapply to Rome's relations with her neighbours in the east cannot always be transferredto the west. In Greece and Asia Minor Rome was dealing with developed societieswho could be integrated into a Roman administrative system; in the west, on the otherhand, the peoples living beyond the frontiers, and indeed within them, were culturallyless well-developed; here Rome had, on the whole, to negotiate with constantlychanging tribal chiefs rather than with established monarchies.Rome's relations with the tribes living on her NW frontiers do, however, need tobe examined in more detail if we are to understand Roman frontier policy fully;diplomatic relations with her neighbours were an integral part of this policy. Thelinear defences, forts, towers, etc. of the Roman frontier cannot be studied inisolation. Roman control, or rather influence, extended well beyond the demarcationline, and it is increasingly necessary to study those areas 'outside the empire' to obtaina full picture. In the last few years the study of relations between Rome and native hasbeen undertaken for different sections of the frontier, most recently for the LowerRhineland.2 Although at the moment such studies are essentially local, it willeventually be possible to collate the material from different regions and thus build upan overall view of Rome's relations with the 'friendly' kings in the west tocomplement the picture of her relations in the east so well-presented by Braund andothers.The area considered in this paper is that covered by present-day Czechoslovakiaand Lower Austria north of the Danube; this region was occupied in Roman times bytwo large German (or Suebian) tribes, the Marcomanni and the Quadi, together withseveral small Germanic and Celtic tribes under their hegemony, including the Osiand the Cotini. The area is relatively small but was always considered to be animportant stretch of the Danubian frontier; by the late first century A.D. no fewer thanthree legionary fortresses faced the lands of the Marcomanni and Quadi at Vindo-bonna, Carnuntum and Brigetio.Literary sources on relations between Rome and the tribes of the Middle Danubeare, as elsewhere in the west, scanty, but some information is available, notably withreference to the early first century A.D. and to the period of the Marcomannic Wars.The aim of this paper is to gather this information together with the intention ofdrawing attention both to consistent aspects of the relationship and to developmentsover time. For this purpose the study will not be confined to the early empire, as is sooften the case, but will cover all four centuries of the Roman period on the MiddleDanube; this wider timespan is possible since there was ethnic stability in this area;unlike the Rhine or Lower Danube the same tribes were Rome's neighboursthroughout.At all periods Rome needed to have some kind of relationship, friendly or

* This paper was written while Jubilee Research 1 D. Braund, Rome and the Friendly King, the Char-Fellow at Royal Holloway and Bedford New College. I acter of the Client Kingship (I984).should like to thank Professors F. Millar and J. J. 2 W. Will, 'R6mische Klientel-Randstaaten amWilkes and Dr J. Carter for helpful comments on an Rhein? Eine Bestandsaufnahme', Bonner Jahrbiicherearlier draft of this paper. I87 (1987), I-62.


3/15

otherwise, with her neighbours, as indeed does any state at any time. In spite of themeagre sources, it is apparent that, apart from short periods of hostilities, relationsbetween Rome and the Marcomanni and Quadi were friendly. Rome was perhapsconcerned to cultivate these German tribes in order to counterbalance the dangerousIazyges, their neighbours.3 Diplomacy rather than military strength kept the peacealong the Suebian frontier.Nowhere in the ancient literary sources are the words cliens or clientela used ofthe relationship between Rome and the Marcomanni and Quadi. As Braund haspointed out, 'client king' is a modern term, a term which is misleading as regards thecomplex diplomatic relations along the frontiers, and one which is heavily over-usedin the secondary literature on the history of the Danubian frontier. Nor does the wordfoedus (formal treaty) appear in the sources except in the anti-Maroboduus propa-ganda of Arminius.4 Words which do occur are amicitia, fides and obsequium; they eachimply an extra-legal relationship not controlled by a formal treaty of any kind. It is,however, significant that agreements of some kind did exist between Rome and theGerman chieftains-presumably to their mutual advantage. Naturally the terms andconditions were not constant; over four centuries they would vary with changingcircumstances. Moreover, due to the nature of German leadership, it is likely that anyagreement in existence would need to be reviewed every time a new chief, or 'king',came to power. For the most part our sources are silent about the details of therelationship. It is always dangerous to generalize from a few isolated references, but areview of the evidence may perhaps point to some common features.In c. 400 years the sources provide us with the names of only eighteen reges of theMarcomanni and Quadi; apart from their names very little is known about themajority of these. The ancient writers, on the whole, only mention relations betweenRome and these German tribes at times of change or unrest when they had somesignificance for the history of Rome in general. 'Normal' or peaceful relations areseldom recorded; however, some idea of the extent of Roman contact with andinfluence on the Germans is now being provided by archaeology (see below, p. 54 ff.).Maroboduus5 (first quarter of the first century A.D.), the first and probably thebest-known king of the Marcomanni, was a powerful ruler in his own right. From hisBohemian stronghold he controlled an empire which extended to the borders ofNoricum; in addition to the Marcomanni, numerous smaller tribes were subject tohim. Maroboduus was considered by Tiberius and other Roman senators to be one ofthe most dangerous of Rome's neighbours.6 In the secondary literature he iscommonly referred to as a client king, but in spite of his generally friendly diplomaticrelations with Rome and the reproaches of Arminius recorded by Tacitus,7 Maro-boduus was in no way a client of Rome. He maintained his independence to the full,sending envoys to Rome as the emperor's equal;8 even when forced into exile andappealing to Tiberius for help, he spoke only of his previous choice of amicitiatowards Rome.9Maroboduus may have spent his youth in Rome under the protection ofAugustus10 or, like other German chiefs, have served in the Roman army; in any casehe utilized what he had learnt of Roman ways. Unlike other German tribes, theMarcomanni had a large standing army (70,000 infantry and 4,000 horse11). Theredoes not seem, however, to have been any obligation for Maroboduus to place theseforces at Rome's disposal. During the war between Rome and the CherusciMaroboduus merely remained neutral. In a true client relationship such a commit-ment would have been implicit and was a normal feature of Rome's relations with

3 J. J. Wilkes, 'Romans, Dacians and Sarmatians in dona et legationes petivisse foedus, proditorem patriae,the First and Early Second Centuries' in B. Hartley satellitem Caesaris'.and J. Wacher (eds), Rome and her Northern Provinces 8 Velleius Paterculus II, io9.(1983), 255-89. 9Tacitus, Ann. II, 63: 'Romanam amicitiam prae-4Tacitus, Ann. II, 45. tulisse'.5Tacitus, Ann. II, 44-6; 62-3; Germania42; Velleius 10Strabo, Geographia vii, i, 3; Suetonius, AugustusPaterculus II, io8-9; Strabo, Geographia vii, i, 3. 48; Res Gestae Divi Augusti 32.6Tacitus, Ann. II, 63. 1 loc. cit. (n. 9).7Tacitus, Ann. II, 45.: 'Maroboduum ... ac mox per

46 LYNN F. PITTS


4/15

ROME AND THE GERMAN 'KINGS' ON THE MIDDLE DANUBEfriendly kings.12 On the other hand, Rome was under no obligation to come toMaroboduus' aid against foreign attack or internal conspiracy (indeed, even ifMaroboduus had been under the official protection of Rome, military support wouldhave been provided only if it were in Rome's interest, and Maroboduus was toopowerful for Rome's peace of mind). Maroboduus was simply granted refuge byTiberius and ended his years in exile at Ravenna. One of the conditions of amicitiawith this powerful neighbour was apparently neutrality rather than mutual support.Another important feature of the relationship seems to have been an economic/trade agreement. Tacitus notes that large numbers of Roman traders were resident inMaroboduus' capital and enjoyed ius commercii;13 the precise meaning of this phrase isnot clear, but Roman traders were presumably granted safe-conduct in the area underhis control and were perhaps also exempt from any taxes on their goods. Romantraders ranged far beyond the frontiers in search of new markets and new sources ofraw materials and may well have put pressure on the government to protect theirtrading interests. Trade with Bohemia was clearly highly profitable; Tacitus speaks of'cupido augendi pecuniam'; this is borne out by the archaeological material, Bohemiabeing particularly rich in Roman imports in the early first century A.D.14 The iuscommercii may even have been a two-way agreement. Hermunduri traders arerecorded as being active in Raetia 15 and, although there is no positive evidence, theMarcomanni may have had similar rights; Pliny refers to amber being brought intoPannonia by the Germans.16Despite Maroboduus' friendly relations with Rome, Rome encouraged discordamongst the tribes under his control to lessen his power. When in c. A.D. 20Catvalda,17 with the support of the Gotones, expelled Maroboduus and took over asruler of the Marcomanni, he was given tacit support by Rome. Rome took no part inthe internal affairs of the Marcomanni but was very much involved diplomatically.Our sources provide no details of the relationship between Rome and Catvalda, but itis likely that a friendly understanding was reached as in the time of Maroboduus. Inany case Catvalda's reign was shortlived. When he in turn was expelled, he too wasgranted a safe refuge by Rome, this time in Forum Julii.Vannius (c. A.D. 20-50) is the best-known king of the Quadi;18 the centre of theRegnum Vannianum almost certainly lay in SW Slovakia but his rule probablyextended westwards into Moravia.19 Vannius is frequently called 'the first client kingof the Quadi' in the secondary literature; he certainly enjoyed friendly diplomaticrelations with Rome, but there is no evidence for the existence of any formal treaty. Inc. A.D. 20 the followers of both the exiled Marcomannic kings were settled by Romenorth of the Danube under the rule of Vannius. It is not entirely clear whetherVannius was already an established leader of the Quadi with friendly relations withRome or whether he owed his very position to Roman interference in the internalaffairs of the Quadi at this time; the words of Tacitus 'dato rege Vannio gentisQuadorum' might suggest the latter.20 In either case, Rome's involvement andinfluence beyond the frontier were increasing; Vannius' relationship with Romeresembled the position of the friendly kings discussed by Braund and others moreclosely than did Maroboduus'.When, however, Vannius appealed to Claudius for help, under threat from

12 D. Braund, op. cit. (n. i). 17 Tacitus, Ann. II, 62-3.13 Tacitus, Ann. II, 62; '... nostris e provinciis lixae et 18 Tacitus, Ann. II, 63; XII, 29-30; Pliny, NH iv, 8o.negotiatores reperti, quos ius commercii, dein cupido 19T. Kolnik, 'Anfange der germanischen Besiedlungaugendi pecuniam, postremum oblivio patriae suis in der Sudwestslowakei und das Regnum Vannianum'quemque ab sedibus hostilem in agrum transtulerant'. in Symposium: Ausklang der La Tene Zivilisation und14 V. Sakar, Roman Imports in Bohemia (Fontes Ar- Anfdnge der germanischen Besiedlung im mittlerenchaeologici Pragenses I4, 1970); K. Motykova-Sneid- Donaugebiet(I977), 143-71; id., RdmerzeitlicheGriber-rova, Die Anfdnge der romischenKaiserzeit in Bohmen felder in der Slowakei I (I980); J. Teyral, 'Po6atky doby(Fontes Archaeologici Pragenses 6, I963); ead., Weiter- rimske na Morave z hlediska hrobavych nalezui', tu-entwicklung und Ausklang der ialteren r6mischen dijne Zvesti Arch. Ustav Slovenskej Akademie viedKaiserzeit in Bihmen (I967). (1970), 107-92; id., 'Zur Chronologie der alteren ro-15 Tacitus, Germania 4I; cf. F. Schlette, Formen des mischen Kaiserzeit im Lichte Mahrischer und West-romisch-germanischenHandels (i975). slowakischer Bodenfunde', ZbornikFilozofickejfakulty16 Pliny, NH XXVII,43: '(amber) affertur a Germanis Univerzity Komenskehoxx (i969), 27-60.in Pannoniam'. 20Ann. ii, 63.

47


5/15

internal conspiracy, it was not forthcoming; Roman troops were moved up to theDanube bank perhaps as a token of support but also, no doubt, to ensure that troubledid not spread into Pannonia. Whether or not Vannius had the right to expect Rome'sprotection under the terms of a treaty is uncertain, but other friendly kings alsodiscovered that promised help failed to materialize.21 Vannius was granted a refugewithin the empire; he and his followers were allowed to settle in N. Pannonia wherethey could provide Rome with a useful diplomatic weapon in any future negotiationswith the Quadi.There is no specific reference in the literary sources to any trade agreement withVannius, but archaeology attests intense Roman trading activity in Slovakia at thistime; there are large numbers of Roman imports of all kinds22 and the tombstone of aRoman negotiator is built into the church at Boldog:23Quintus Atilius Spurii filius Voturia tribu Primus interprex legionis XV idem centurionegotiator annorum LXXX hic situs est. Quintus Atilius Cogitatus Atilia Quinti libertaFausta Privatus et Martialis heredes libentes posuerunt.

It is reasonable to assume that Roman merchants were guaranteed some protection inVannius' kingdom. Slovakia too was a natural intermediary for trade between Romeand more distant barbarian tribes; the 'amber route' ran north from Carnuntum upthe river Morava. Tacitus, in describing the wealth of Vannius, mentions vectigalia;these perhaps represent duty imposed on goods in transit through his kingdom. Atrade agreement of some kind must have existed between Rome and Vannius.The successors of Vannius, Vangio and Sido,24 divided his kingdom betweenthem (perhaps separating SW Slovakia and Moravia). Peaceful relations with Rome,however, continued; the new leaders must have renewed any existing arrangementswith Rome, or perhaps even altered the conditions in Rome's favour, since Tacitusremarks on their 'egregia fides' towards Rome.In A.D. 69, two Suebian kings, Sido and Italicus, together with their followersjoined the army of Vespasian and fought at Cremona;25 Latin writers frequently usedthe word Suebi in place of Marcomanni and Quadi. This Sido may be identical withthe successor of Vannius; the name Italicus is interesting since it suggests closer tieswith Rome; he may have served in the Roman army. Rome's relations with theGerman tribes on the Middle Danube were clearly still peaceful. The German kingswere, moreover, sufficiently affiliated to Rome to become involved in internal Romanpolitics; they were, no doubt, amply rewarded by Vespasian and perhaps evenreceived Roman citizenship. Tacitus mentions the 'vetus obsequium' and 'fides' ofthese kings to Rome. The word obsequium can be variously translated as 'allegiance,compliance, obedience'; it implies greater Roman control over these German tribesthan had been the case earlier in the first century.In A.D. 89 Domitian waged war against the Marcomanni and Quadi in retaliationfor their failure to support him in his campaigns against the Dacians.26 Domitian clearlythought that they were under an obligation to do so. If this were so, the relationshiphad clearly changed since the early first century; but was Domitian's interpretation ofthe situation correct? Maroboduus' failure to join Rome's campaign against Arminiushad equally aroused Tiberius' anger, apparently without real cause. During the reignsof Domitian and Nerva there were several minor outbreaks of hostilities.27Tacitus, Germania 42 f. refers to the contemporary situation, i.e. the reign ofTrajan:

21 Braund, op. cit. (n. I). Scientiarum Hungaricae xxx (1978), 61-75; R. Hosek,22 L. Kraskovska, Roman Bronze Vesselsfrom Slo- Tituli Latini Pannoniae Superioris Annis I967-82 invakia, BAR Int. Ser. XLIV (1978); ead., 'Roman Glass Slovakia Reperti (i984), I45 ff.Vessels from Slovakia', Journal Glass Studies xxiii 24 Tacitus, Ann. xII, 29-30.(I98I), II-I7; E. Krekovic, 'Aimska Importovana 25 Tacitus, Hist. III, 5; 2i.Keramika na Slovensku', Slovenskd Arche6logia xxix, 2 26 Cassius Dio LXVII, 6-7; Tacitus, Hist. I, 2; Statius,(I98i), 341-78; id., 'ftimske importy na Slovensku', Silvae III, 3, i68-70; ILS 9200.Pamdtky Archeologicki LXXVIII, I (I987), 23 1-82. 27 Rufus Festus, Brev. 8; CIL x, 135; XI, 5992; ILS23 T. Kolnik, 'Q. Atilius Primus-Interprex Centu- 9200.rio und Negotiator', Acta Archaeologica Academiae

48 LYNN F. PITTS


6/15

ROME AND THE GERMAN 'KINGS' ON THE MIDDLE DANUBEMarcomannis Quadisque usque ad nostram memoriam reges manserunt ex genteipsorum, nobile Marobodui et Tudri genus (iam et externos patiuntur), sed vis et potentiaregibus ex auctoritate Romana. raro armis nostris saepius pecunia iuvantur, nec minusvalent.

This passage suggests a much more subservient role for the kings of the Marcomanniand Quadi. Rome now seems to exercise increased control over the German choice ofking, even to the extent of nominating outsiders if it were in her own interest. Thekings are said to hold their position 'because of Rome's influence'; thus now theybetter fit the pattern of Rome's 'client' or friendly kings. The German kings,however, unlike the friendly kings in the east, enjoyed economic rather than militarysupport; this is not a reference to the large, regular subsidies to barbarians familiarfrom the third century and later; the money can be interpreted rather as specificpayments in times of need.A change is, then, apparent in the relations between Rome and the tribes beyondthe Danube during the first century A.D. This may in part be due to the changingcharacter of Rome's presence on the Middle Danube in the first century; largenumbers of troops were moved up to bases on the right bank of the Danube in theFlavian period. The German kings gradually took on a more subservient role,becoming increasingly dependent on Rome for their own position; internal affairswere still in general their own concern but Rome increasingly interfered in these too.In return for Rome's support, greater demands were made on these kings, forexample active involvement in Roman campaigns. Although there is very littlemention of trade in our literary sources, it is clear from the archaeological remainsthat Roman trade beyond the Danube was thriving; the need to protect this trademust always have influenced Rome's dealings with the German kings. It is evenpossible, although as yet there is no indisputable evidence, that official trading-stations had been established in Barbaricum by the early second century.28Interference in the internal affairs of the Germans continued in the secondcentury. A coin of Antoninus Pius with the reverse legend 'rex Quadis datus'celebrates the appointment of a new Quadan king by Rome.29 The background to theappointment is not known, but it probably occurred after a minor Suebian warrecorded during the reign of Antoninus Pius.30 The scene depicted on the reverse ofthe coin is of some interest; the Quadan king takes the Emperor by the hand, the twobeing shown on the same scale, that is as equals. In contrast, a contemporary coin ofAntoninus Pius and coins of Trajan celebrating the appointment by Rome of kings inthe east show the kings as inferior to the Emperor. This may reflect a difference inRome's attitude to the friendly kings of the west and the east in the second century.Early in the reign of Marcus Aurelius the Quadi sought the approval of theEmperor for their choice of king, Furtius.31 This suggests acceptance by the Germansof Rome's right to interfere in their internal affairs. Later, during the MarcomannicWars, Furtius, who enjoyed the support of Marcus Aurelius and friendly relationswith Rome, was expelled by the Quadi, and Ariogaesis was appointed in his place.32The new king did not trouble to seek Marcus Aurelius' approval nor to come to afriendly understanding with Rome; consequently a price was placed on the head ofAriogaesis and when eventually taken captive he was condemned to exile inAlexandria. By the mid-second century, then, Rome's right to choose the leaders ofthe tribes beyond the Danube was apparently firmly established; like other friendlykingdoms the area was looked upon as an extension of the Empire. In this context theintention credited to Marcus Aurelius of establishing a new province of Marcomanniabecomes more plausible.33

28 0. Pelikan, 'Das Vorland des pannonischen Limes to Antoninus Pius appointing kings in order to protectin der Tschechoslowakei', ZbornikFilosofickej Fakulty the empire.Univerzity Komenskeho. v. Graecolatina et Orientalia 30 SHA, Antoninus Pius, 5, 4.(I973), 147-64; id., 'Rimske Imperium a Uzemi CSSR 31 SHA, Marcus Aurelius, I4, 3.v svetle novych vyzkumi', Sbornik Praci Filozoficke 32 Cassius Dio LXXI, 13-14.Fakulty Brnenske Univerzity (i983), 220-8. 33 SHA, Marcus Aurelius 24, 5; 27, 9-12; Cassius Dio29 E. Swoboda, 'Rex Quadis Datus', Carnuntum LXXI, 33, 4.Jahrbuch II (I956), 5-I2. Appian, praef., 7, 25-8 refers

49


7/15

Cassius Dio records at least some of the peace terms issued by Marcus Aureliusand Commodus to the Marcomanni and Quadi at various stages of the MarcomannicWars:34Others, like the Quadi, asked for peace, which was granted them, both in the hope thatthey might be detached from the Marcomanni, and also because they gave him [i.e.Marcus Aurelius] many horses and cattle and promised to surrender all the deserters andthe captives, besides,-thirteen thousand at first, and later all the others as well. The rightto attend the markets, however, was not granted to them, for fear that the Iazyges and theMarcomanni, whom they had sworn not to receive nor to allow to pass through theircountry, should mingle with them, and passing themselves off for Quadi, shouldreconnoitre the Roman positions and purchase provisions.When the Marcomanni sent envoys to him, Marcus, in view of the fact that they hadfulfilled all the conditions imposed upon them, albeit grudgingly and reluctantly, restoredto them one-half of the neutral zone along their frontier, so that they might now settle towithin a distance of five miles from the Ister; and he established the places and the daysfor their trading together (for these had not been previously fixed) and exchangedhostages with them.Marcus Aurelius released them from many of the restrictions that had been imposed uponthem-in fact, from all save those affecting their assembling and trading together and therequirements that they should not use boats of their own and should keep away from theislands in the Ister.In addition to the conditions that his father had imposed upon them he [Commodus] alsodemanded that they restore to him the deserters and the captives that they had taken inthe meantime, and that they furnish annually a stipulated amount of grain-a demandfrom which he subsequently released them. Moreover, he obtained some arms from themand soldiers as well, thirteen thousand from the Quadi and a smaller number from theMarcomanni; and in return for these he relieved them of the requirement of an annuallevy. However, he further commanded that they should not assemble often nor in manyparts of the country, but only once each month and in one place, and in the presence of aRoman centurion; and, furthermore, that they should not make war upon the Iazyges, theBuri, or the Vandili. On these terms, then, he made peace and abandoned all the outpostsin their country beyond the strip along the frontier that had been neutralized.

He thus provides us with more explicit information on the relations between theRomans and the Germans on the Danube frontier than any other source. These peaceterms, it must be remembered, were applicable to a specific situation on the frontier.It is, therefore, dangerous to transfer them backwards or forwards in time; yet,because of the general lack of evidence, much of the secondary literature on the areauses these terms in a wider historical context than is valid.Some of the terms are to be expected in any peace treaty following upon militarycampaigns; the surrender of deserters and captives, the handing over of hostages bythe defeated tribes, the surrender of horses and cattle and the levy of fighting men intothe Roman army. In fact an inscription refers to Valerius Maximianus takingMarcomannic and Quadan equites to the east in A.D. I75.35 Equally the control of theuse of boats on the Danube by the Germans and Sarmatians was a natural precautionagainst future raiding. The other conditions recorded by Cassius Dio are moreinteresting with regard to the relations between Rome and the Quadi and Marco-manni.A neutral zone (or rather a strip of land to which the Germans were deniedaccess) was established by Marcus Aurelius on the left bank of the Danube. Thewidth of this zone was later reduced, and it is uncertain how long it was maintainedafter Commodus' reign. It is also uncertain how this zone was controlled by Rome;were regular patrols sent across the river from Pannonia or did permanent stationsexist on the left bank of the Danube? A fort founded in the time of Marcus Aurelius

34 Cassius Dio LXXI, I ; i5-I6; 18-I9; LXXII, 2.

LYNN F. PITTS0

35AE I956, I24.


8/15

ROME AND THE GERMAN 'KINGS' ON THE MIDDLE DANUBEhas been excavated at Iza-Leanyvar opposite Brigetio,36 but although others may haveexisted, none has yet been located. Cassius Dio states that all ppoipia beyond thisneutral zone were abandoned by Commodus; were these ppoupia intended aspermanent bases or merely temporary camps used during the campaigns? Cassius Diorefers to 20,000 soldiers stationed in the lands of the Marcomanni and Quadi ?vT-iXEaCV,which were even equipped with bath-houses; the Roman site excavated atMusov in S. Moravia may have housed soldiers during the campaigns of MarcusAurelius, and the temporary camp of Laugaricio, capable of housing 855 men ofLegion II Adiutrix, awaits discovery in the vicinity of Trencin in Slovakia, where aninscription carved on the castle rock attests its existence in A.D. I79/80.37 There is asyet, however, no archaeological evidence for the permanent presence of Romansoldiers beyond the Danube at any time; this area was never 'occupied territory'; eventhe 'neutral zone' was probably only short-lived.Following the Marcomannic Wars, Rome's interference in the affairs of theMarcomanni and Quadi increased. Their choice of ruler needed Rome's approval asbefore, and restrictions were imposed on political life. Assemblies were forbiddenexcept under strict Roman control. Under Commodus assemblies were allowed atspecific locations once a month provided that a Roman official, a centurion, waspresent.38 These measures were no doubt intended to prevent further trouble; it isunknown how long such interference continued.There is no evidence that the Quadi and Marcomanni paid tribute or taxes toRome at any time. The annual grain levy imposed by Commodus was soon rescinded;it was an indemnity for the wars rather than tribute. The annual troop levy imposed byMarcus Aurelius was also abolished by Commodus following a single, extra large levy.The denial of access to the markets of the Roman provinces throws further lighton Roman-German relations on the Middle Danube.39 It suggests that before theMarcomannic Wars Germans had been free to enter Pannonia at will and had beenfrequent attenders at the markets at Carnuntum and elsewhere. It has already beendemonstrated that Roman traders were active beyond the frontiers and wereoperating under the protection of the friendly kings. Any trade agreements were, itseems, two-way, German traders being equally free to buy and sell in Romanmarkets. It is unlikely that access was denied indefinitely; there is certainly noarchaeological evidence for a decline in Roman-German trade in the late second/thirdcentury A.D.; if anything it increased.40Evidence for Rome's diplomatic relations on the Middle Danube in the thirdcentury is minimal. On the whole, relations seem to have been peaceful until the laterthird century when raids and larger-scale barbarian incursions became more frequent;trade contacts continued to thrive. During the Civil Wars of A.D. 193 Septimius Severusderived much of his support from the Danubian provinces; it is possible that, as in A.D.70, the rulers of the German tribes beyond the Danube were again involved in thestruggle for power within the Roman empire.41 The epitaph of a German prince foundat Carnuntum is often linked with the events of A.D. I93.42 The prince, a Roman citizen,bore the name Septimius Aistomodius. It has, therefore, been suggested that he wasgranted citizenship by Septimius Severus in return for his support in the Civil Wars.Alternatively, Aistomodius may have been one of the many Germans who served inthe Roman army; such recruits are known as early as the first century A.D.43 On

36K. Kuzmova and J. Rajtir, 'Bisherige Erkennt- Slovenskd Arche6ologiaxxxi (I983), 85-120; Tabulanisse zur Befestigung des Romerkastells in Iza', Slo- Imperii Romani M33 (Prague, I986), 99 ff.venskd Arche6logia xxiv, I (I986), I85-224; id., 'An- 41 Herodian II, 9, 12: sierTE. TrE Kti ES Ta yEITVicAvTafinge des R6merlagers in Iza', Archeologicke Rozhledy IOvfl Kal wrrpS TraVTs OaUS apXovTas TrCV OTT' apKTcr)xxxviii (I986), 358-77, 459-62. 'PwcoiaioiS8ouAeu6vOTovOvcbv.37 Cassius Dio LXXI, 20; J. Teyral, 'Neue Erkenntnisse 42 CIL III, 4453; ILS 856.zum r6mischen Stiitzpunkt am Burgstall bei Mosov in 43 Arminius and his brother Flavius both served inSuiidmahren', Archeologicke Rozhledy xxxviii (I986), 395- the Roman army (Tacitus, Ann. I, 54-68; II, 7-20); for410, 463-6; R. Hosek, InscriptionesPannoniaeSuperiores references to Germans from beyond the Rhine in thein Slovakia Transdanubiana Asservatae (I967), no. 2. Roman army see Will, op. cit. (n. 2). The discovery of38Cassius Dio LXXII,2. Roman weapons in graves in Barbaricum suggests that39 Cassius Dio LXXI, I; I5. some of these soldiers returned to their homelands after40J. Teyral, 'Mahren und die Markomannenkriege', discharge.

5 I


9/15

completing their service they received Roman citizenship. A German discharged inthe early third century would reasonably have taken the name Septimius.Peaceful diplomatic relations with the Marcomanni and Quadi seem to have beenmaintained throughout the third century. Rome continued to interfere in the internalaffairs of the tribes and to encourage dissension amongst them in order to ensure herown security. On one occasion, following an inter-tribal quarrel, Caracalla executedGaiobomarus, king of the Quadi;44 thus the German kings could be treated as Romansubjects in the third century. There is also a brief reference in SHA to a proposedcampaign by Elagabalus against the Marcomanni; his aim is said to have been to makethem 'semper devoti atque amici' to Rome.45 The idea of securing the friendship ofthe neighbouring tribes in order to maintain frontier security was as important in thethird century as in the first.The situation on the Danube was changing in the fourth century; Rome wascoming into contact with new peoples; there was increasing pressure on the frontierwith frequent incursions. Diplomatic relations and trade contacts with the Marco-manni and Quadi were, however, still maintained. Two main periods of conflict withthe Quadi appear in the literary sources.The first occurred in A.D. 358;46 the Quadi joined with the Sarmatians in raidsinto Pannonia. Constantius led a counter-attack across the Danube, putting thebarbarians to flight, and pursued them into their own lands, 'ad Quadorum regna'.Araharius, one of the Quadan princes, sued for peace, handing over prisoners-of-warand hostages, but hostilities continued. More of the Roman army was moved up toBrigetio, the obvious springboard for an attack on the lands of the Quadi in SWSlovakia. This time King Vitrodorus of the Quadi, together with his subregulusAgilimundus, optimates and iudices, sued for peace. The Quadi handed over childrenas hostages and swore oaths of loyalty to Rome (cf. the fides of Quadan leaders towardsRome in the first century, p. 48). Friendly relations were thus restored until thereign of Valentinian. The information from Ammianus shows that the Quadi wereorganized in a hierarchical structure at this time which had perhaps developed underRoman influence.In the 370os trouble again broke out, this time triggered by Roman action.47Marcellianus, on Valentinian's instructions, began to build Roman strongholdsbeyond the Danube on Quadan territory 'trans flumen Histrum in ipsis Quadorumterris quasi Romano iuri iam vindicatis aedificari praesidiaria castra mandavit'. Thereason for the construction of these castra is not given by Ammianus but they werepresumably for the protection of Pannonia from the barbarian hoards now pressinginto the lands of the Quadi and Marcomanni rather than for exercising control overthe local population.48 The Quadi objected to these strongholds; clearly any diplo-matic arrangements in existence at this time did not give Rome the right to trespass onQuadan territory or use it as an extension of the empire for military purposes. But theQuadan embassies protested to no avail, and a second protest by Gabinius, king of theQuadi, ended in his murder at a banquet given by Marcellianus. In response theQuadi, joined by the Sarmatians, invaded Pannonia, burning farms, seizing animalsand carrying off the rural population into slavery.Valentinian and his forces crossed the Danube at Aquincum from where headvanced towards the Quadan lands. He forced the Quadi to retreat into the hillswhilst he laid waste the fertile plains and then withdrew to Carnuntum. Envoys of theQuadi presented themselves here treating for peace, promising among other things toprovide recruits for the Roman army. During the audience Valentinian flew into arage, collapsed and died. Nevertheless, friendly relations with the Quadi seem to havebeen restored.The reference in Ammianus Marcellinus to praesidaria castra is frequently usedto support the view that permanent Roman bases existed beyond the Danube in thefourth century. There is as yet no archaeological evidence of such bases, apart from

44Cassius Dio LXXVII, 20, 3. 47Ammianus Marcellinus xxix, 6, I ff.; xxx, 5, I ff.;45SHA, Elagabalus 9. 6, i ff.46 Ammianus Marcellinus xvII, I2, I ff. 48Ammianus Marcellinus xxxI, 4, 2.

LYNN F. PITTS52


10/15

ROME AND THE GERMAN 'KINGS' ON THE MIDDLE DANUBEthe continued occupancy of the bridgehead fort at Iza-Leanyvar,49 and there is noreason to assume that any such bases will indeed be found in the future; work hadscarcely begun when war broke out and there is no mention of it continuing afterpeace was made. More significant is the fact that the attempt to erect castra was anentirely new and upsetting phenomenon to the Quadi. Their relationship with Romein the fourth century was one of friendly independence as, apart from the brief periodof hostilities in the second century, it had been since the first century.

IIThe total literary evidence is thus very small over four centuries; even so, there issufficient information available to show the relationship between Rome and theMarcomanni and Quadi developing with time as Roman influence over, andinterference in, the area increased, although never to the point of exercising directcontrol over these tribes.Any power, Rome being no exception, has, of necessity, to have some kind ofrelationship with its immediate neighbours;50 peaceful relations were obviouslyhighly desirable and to the mutual advantage of both parties. Treaties or informal

agreements, renewed and changed as and when necessary, would ensure peacefulrelations. Whenever possible Rome employed diplomacy rather than military force toprotect her frontiers; the result was a series of friendly kingdoms outside the empirewho in effect formed the frontier. The precise arrangements naturally variedaccording to local circumstances; hence the more detailed information on relations onthe eastern frontiers cannot be used to supplement the scanty information for theDanube. Care must also be exercised in using information for one period of time tosupport an overall view of relations on the Danube; literary evidence is frequentlyused out of context in the secondary literature.A study of Rome's relations with the kings on the Middle Danube is bestapproached as a series of questions:(i) What were the responsibilities of Rome and the friendly king? A change is

apparent from the neutrality of Maroboduus to active military support of Rome bythe kings in the later first century; the role of these kings was to keep the peace on thefrontier and to protect against outside threats. In return Rome may have offeredsupport to the king, but military support was seldom forthcoming.(2) What were the advantages to the two parties? Peace on the frontier was anobvious advantage; it allowed both Rome and the friendly king to concern themselveswith other matters, releasing troops for use elsewhere. There was also an obviouseconomic advantage to both sides.(3) What were the financial obligations of the two parties? There is no evidence ofa regular tax or tribute paid by the German tribes; payments in kind mentioned in thesources are one-off or short-term payments imposed after a period of hostilities. Noris there clear evidence of a regular subsidy paid by Rome; Tacitus' reference topecunia does not necessarily imply a regular sum or indeed a large one.5' Subsidies tobarbarian tribes were generally a feature of the later Roman Empire though the kingson the Bosporus received a regular subsidy as early as the second century. By analogy,subsidies are to be expected on the Middle Danube in the later third/fourth century.(4) Were Roman troops and/or officials permanently posted in these kingdoms?There is no literary evidence for troops stationed beyond the Danube to give theGerman kings military support; references to the presence of Roman troops occurduring wars or in their immediate aftermath. Indeed, the presence of Roman troopsand the construction of permanent posts caused unease among the Quadi in both thesecond and the fourth centuries;52 this suggests that there was no diplomatic provision

49 Kuzmova and Rajtar, op. cit. (n. 36); T. Kolnik, zhledy xxxvIII (I986), 411-34.'Neue Ergebnisse der Limesforschung in der CSSR' in 50Braund, op. cit. (n. i).Studien zu den Militargrenzen Roms III. I3 internation- 51Tacitus, Germania 42 f.aler Limeskongress, Aalen I983 (1986), 355-6I; id., 52Cassius Dio LXXI, 20; Ammianus Marcellinus xxIx,'R6mische Stationen im slowakischen Abschnitt des 6, i ff.; xxx, 5, i if.nordpannonischen Limesvorlandes', ArcheologickgRo-

53


11/15

for such a presence. The posting of troops beyond the frontier would increasedemands on Roman manpower and seems unlikely. Archaeology has so far producedlittle trace of permanent Roman bases beyond the Danube with the exception of Iza-Leanyvar53 and perhaps Musov;54 other Roman buildings are of a civilian nature. Thesituation with regard to the presence of Roman officials is so far unclear.(5) How important were the economic aspects of the relationship? In spite ofminimal references in the literary sources, the economic aspects were almost certainlyas important as the military (economic aspect here is a reference to trade rather thantribute or subsidy). The extent of Roman trade beyond the frontier is apparent in thearchaeology, but it has only recently been given the consideration it deserves in thesecondary literature.(6) To what extent were the Quadi and Marcomanni 'Romanized'? The literarysources are again of little assistance, although they mention the receipt of Romancitizenship by the Germans, service in the Roman army and settlement in theRoman provinces, even in Italy.55 Archaeology, however, reveals extensive use ofRoman artefacts of all kinds, use of Roman coins and use of Roman-style buildings bythe aristocracy. The assimilation of these trans-Danubian tribes to Roman ways nodoubt helped to foster peaceful relations on the frontier; it also led to a desire forreceptio within the empire in times of trouble.56At no time does a written treaty or foedus seem to have existed to regulaterelations between Rome and the Marcomanni and Quadi; there is no reference to orhint of such a treaty in the literary sources. The relationship between Rome and theGerman kings seems rather to have been one of amicitia; indeed the word amicitia wasused by Maroboduus to describe his relations with Rome. Amicitia was an informal,extra-legal relationship with no specific obligations on either side.57 The lack of anywritten treaty helps to explain some of the confusion that arose at times over whatrights and obligations each party had, amicitia being a much more ambiguousrelationship than one defined by treaty.The general picture of relations on the Middle Danube is similar to thatpresented by Braund for the eastern empire,58 although Rome was dealing with verydifferent societies. In both areas the friendly kings played an extensive role in thedefence of the empire at a minimal cost to Roman military or administrativemanpower. The kings enjoyed day-to-day independence but needed Rome's recogni-tion of their position, and Rome increasingly interfered in internal affairs. Romancitizenship was, however, less frequently granted to the kings on the NW frontierthan to the established kings of the east and, unlike the east, Roman garrisons wereseldom posted in their kingdoms. Moreover, an important aspect of the friendlyrelations on the Danube, which receives little attention in discussions on friendlykings of the east, is that of trade.

IIIIn recent years there have been dramatic increases in our knowledge of the areabeyond the Middle Danube through archaeology. The importance of Bohemia and itsclose contacts with Rome in the late first century B.c./early first century A.D. havebeen confirmed;59 archaeology has also identified the probable centre of the kingdomof Vannius as the Trnava area of Slovakia60 and shown that S. Moravia increased inimportance in the mid-first century A.D.,61 perhaps reflecting the division of the

53 op. cit. (n. 36). 58 op. cit. (n. I).54 Teyral, op cit. (n. 37); L. Pitts, 'Roman Style 59 Tabula Imperii Romana M33; Sakar, op. cit.Buildings in Barbaricum (Moravia and SW Slovakia)', (n. I4); K. Motykova, 'Die altere r6mische KaiserzeitOxford Journal of Archaeology vi, 2 (I987), 2I9-36. in Bohmen im Lichte der neueren historisch-archaolo-55 Tacitus, Ann. XII, 30; Cassius Dio LXXI, II; 20; gischen Forschung' in Aufstieg und Niedergang II, 5, iSHA, Marcus Aurelius 22. (1976), 143-99.56 SHA, Marcus Aurelius, 14, 2; cf. Germanfoederati 60 T. Kolnik, 'Prehl'ad a stav Badania o Dobe rim-in the fourth century. skej a stahovani Narodov', Slovenskd Arche6ologia IX, 257E. S. Gruen, The Hellenistic Worldand the Coming (1971), 499-558; id. op. cit. (n. I9).of Rome I (i984), ch. 2, 54-95, '(tlAia-Amicitia: The 61 Teyral, op. cit. (n. 40).Informal Connection'.

LYNN F. PITTS54


12/15

ROME AND THE GERMAN 'KINGS' ON THE MIDDLE DANUBEQuadan kingdom between Sido and Vangio; even the settlement of Vannius and hisfollowers in Pannonia is apparently confirmed by the presence of German gravesaround the Neusiedler See in Austria.But archaeology can also provide information on matters where the literarysources are silent. Already it is apparent that the area adjacent to the frontier was verydifferent from the rest of Barbaricum. It is possible to speak of a 'third zone',62 an areaunder strong Roman influence as a result of its proximity to the Roman empire. This'third zone' clearly corresponds to the friendly kingdoms of the literary sources wherefriendly diplomatic relations resulted in close contact between Rome and barbarians.The 'third zone' on the Middle Danube consists of SW Slovakia, S. Moravia andLower Austria north of the Danube. This is the area occupied by the Quadi andMarcomanni from the mid-first century A.D. onwards. Bohemia is not part of the'third zone'; it seems that after the fall of Maroboduus Roman influence in Bohemiadecreased. The number of Roman imports to Bohemia fell dramatically after c. A.D.20, whilst it increased in Slovakia at this time and in Moravia somewhat later. Thearchaeological evidence in fact suggests a movement of people, presumably theMarcomanni, from Bohemia to Slovakia and Moravia in the first century A.D.;63certainly both Tacitus and Cassius Dio located the Marcomanni on the Danube,64which Bohemia is not. Was this movement of Germans one of the reasons for theconcentration of Roman forces along the banks of the Danube in the Flavian period?In the 'third zone' strong Roman influence is demonstrated by the presence in allnative cemeteries and settlements of Roman imports of all kinds; not just luxurygoods but everyday artefacts abound.65 It is significant that Roman imports are foundin the huts of ordinary people on settlement sites in this area (some 400 have beenexcavated), whereas elsewhere in Barbaricum only luxury items such as bronzevessels are found and these in the graves of the aristocracy (see Fig. i). Moravia andSW Slovakia also have a significantly greater number of imports than neighbouringSarmatia, perhaps a reflection of the latter's less friendly relationship with Rome.Roman pottery, apart from terra sigillata (and even that in very small quantitiesand treated as a luxury) is very rare further from the frontier in Bohemia, N. Moraviaand E. Slovakia (see Fig. 2).66 A similar picture is painted by Tacitus, who says thaton the whole Germans did not use Roman tableware except in the areas close to thefrontiers where wine-services were in use.67In addition to terra sigillata, beakers, mortaria, barbotine ware, Raetian ware,marbled ware, stamped and painted Pannonian wares, as well as simple red and greycooking-pots and jars made in Pannonia, are all found in Moravia and Slovakia;68indeed some of the Pannonian wares may have been produced specifically for theGerman market as some of the forms are rare in the province itself. The widespreaddistribution of Roman pottery in this region shows that Roman influence extended toall levels of society; it was not confined to the upper classes, although their socialposition was no doubt reinforced by diplomatic gifts, as indicated by the luxury itemsfound in rich graves.69 Moreover, the use of wine ladles and strainers and mortariaindicates a change in the eating and drinking patterns of the natives.

62 J. Bouzek and I. Ondrejova, ' Treti Zona mezi Schmiedlova, 'Romische Importe in der Ostslowakei'ltimem a Barbarikem pri Noricko-Pannonskem Lim- in Concilium Eirene xvI (I983), II 20o-6.itu' to be published in ArcheologickeRozhledy. 67 Tacitus, Germania, 5; 7, I.63 Teyral, op. cit. (n. 40). 68R. M. Pernicka, Die Keramik der alteren romischen64 Tacitus, Germania 42; Cassius Dio LXXI,15; LXXII, 2. Kaiserzeit in Mdhren (1 966); E. Droberjar, K problema-65 Kraskovski, op. cit. (n. 22); Krekovic, op. cit. tice vyskytu a vyznamu fimskeho keramickeho mportuv(n. 22); J. Teyral, 'Kotizce importu bronzovych nadob moravskych ndlezech (Diplomovi Price, Brno, I986);na Moravu ve starsi dobe rimske', Pamatky Archeolo- D. Palatovi, Terra sigillata v moravskem ndlezovemgicke LVIII (I967), 81-I34; J. Lomenova, Rimske bron- prostfedi (Diplomova Price, Brno, I980); P. Roth,zove nddobyna Slovensku (Diplomovi Price, Karlovy Terra sigillata na Slovensku a jej vyznam v barbarskejUniverzity, Prague, I98); J. Heckovi, 'Podial vyrob- spolocnosti(Diplomova Praice, Prague, 198I); Krekovicnych centier rimskych provincu na spolocenskoeko- (i98I), op. cit. (n. 22). K. Kuzmovi and P. Roth, Terranomickam vyvoji naddunajskeho barbarika vo svetle Sigillata v Barbariku, Ndlezy z GermdnskychSidlisk arimskych importov', Slovenskt Archeologiaxxx (i982), Pohrebisk na CJzemiSlovenska (Materialia Archaeolo-5-77. gica Slovaca IX, I988).66 Sakar, op. cit. (n. 14); J. Teyral, 'K Otazce posta- 69V. Ondrouch, Bohate Hroby z doby ri'mskejnaveni Moravy v dobe kolem prelomu letopoctu', Pa- Slovensku (I957); T. Kolnik, Rimske a GermanskemdtkyArcheologickeLIX 2 968), 488-5 I6; M. Lamiovai- Umenie na Slovensku (i984).

55


13/15

LYNN F. PITTS

FIG. 2. MAP SHOWING AREA OF DISTRIBUTION OF ROMAN POTTERY

The aristocrats also benefited from Roman technical aid. Several buildings builtin the Roman manner with Roman building materials but apparently occupied byGermans have been discovered in Slovakia (see Fig. 3).70 These buildings againindicate the adoption of Roman ways; they are provided with hypocaust-heating and,in at least one case, with a bath-house. A few Roman lamps have also been found onnative sites.71The economic effect of the close contact with Rome was enormous. The numberof Roman imports in this area indicates the scale of trans-Danubian trade, and it isvery likely that the Marcomanni and Quadi acted as middlemen in the long-distancetrade with peoples further from the frontier; taxes on goods passing through his lands70 Pitts, art. cit. (n. 54).71 E. Krekovic, 'R6mische Lampenfunde im Slowak- ischen Barbaricum', Archeologicke Rozhledy xxxv(I983), 5Io-I6.

56


14/15

ROME AND THE GERMAN 'KINGS' ON THE MIDDLE DANUBE

FIG. 3. MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF SITES WITH ROMAN-STYLE BUILDINGS.* Roman military base: i, Vindobonna/Vienna; 2, Carnuntum; 3, Gerulata/Rusov6e; 4, Brigetio; 5, Celemantia/Iza-Leanyvar. * Site with Roman-style buildings: 6, Musov; 7, Oberleiserberg; 8, Niederleis; 9, Stillfried;IO,Stupava; i , Dibravka; I2, Devin; 13, Cifer Pac; 14, Milanovce; 15, Laugaricio/Trencin (inscription)o Possible site: i6, Stare Mesto; 17, Mikulcice; i8, Komajtice; I9, Chotin.

were the source of Vannius' wealth.72 In addition, trade contacts with Rome wouldhave provided the impetus to produce more goods for exchange, thus stimulatingagricultural and industrial developments among the Germans.Roman traders reintroduced the use of coinage in this area; it seems that in the'third zone' Roman coins were not confined to transactions with Romans but wereused in exchanges between Germans as well, whereas in regions more distant from thefrontier Roman coins were regarded as bullion rather than currency. Tacitus statesthat Germans only understood the use of coins on the frontiers, not in the interior.73In SW Slovakia and Moravia the Roman coins found display the same highproportion of bronze to gold and silver as in Pannonia, whilst elsewhere the preciousmetals predominate; this suggests everyday use in small transactions. Moreover, in

73 Tacitus, Germania 5; 26.

57

72Tacitus, Ann. xII, 30.


15/15

this region large numbers of the coins found represent casual loss rather thanhoarding.74

CONCLUSIONThere is then enough literary evidence, albeit limited, to piece together a

continuous picture of the diplomatic relations between Rome and the Marcomanniand Quadi. Furthermore, archaeology is gradually telling us more about theseGermanic peoples and how extensively their lives were affected by their proximity tothe Roman empire. Roman influence extended not just to the tribal leaders, whoreceived luxury goods as diplomatic presents and through trade and, it seems,technical aid, but also to the lower classes. Roman artefacts were in everyday use at alllevels of society and some of these suggest the adoption of Roman ways. This socialand economic relationship is the real background against which the diplomatic andmilitary relations on the middle Danube must eventually be judged.Didcot, Oxon.

74 Tabula Imperii Romani M33; J. Wielowiejski, 'DieKontakte Noricums und Pannoniens mit den nord-lichen Volkern im Lichte der romische Importe' inH.-J. Dolle (ed.), Romerund Germanen n Mitteleuropa(i975), 69-86.

58 LYNN F. PITTS

Documents

Relations Between Rome and the German 'Kings' on the Middle Danube in the First to Fourth Centuries AD